A common criticism of modern MMA is that the rule set takes away from strikers. No soccer kicks, no knees to a grounded opponent's head etc. The cage and the rule set are generally better suited to wrestlers. Of course there will be many exceptions, but as a general theme the perception is that in the cage, wrestlers are at an advantage over strikers.

That's why I listed a bunch of guys who can grapple and strike and not guys like Daley or Thompson... You are listing Bader as an example when Chuck did the similar thing to Randleman years ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

Henderson's wrestling is one of his strengths, but he doesn't use it as the only aspect he's comfortable with.

Yes, and when he left it entirely to his striking, all he really had was a couple of leg kicks. That dont make anyone a striker imo, echoing Muchmores point of sticking to what you are good at

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

And almost everyone tries to take JDS down, come on man. Mir, Cain, Roy, all of them went for the takedown at one stage or another and got denied.

No they didnt, they couldnt even get past the punches to make contact, and Mir doing a superman dive towards JDS' ankle was desperation not really a valid TDA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

Why so hostile? I didn't make up the general opinion that strikers are disadvantaged in the modern game. I only pointed out that there are a lot of them at the championship level right now, and asked for some discussion about the state of striking in MMA in the unified-rules era of the sport. No need to get ****y about that, surely.

[/quote] That wasnt hostile . The boxing fans in the general probably havent watch more than a few MMA fights and when they go to the ground they find it boring, which is fair enough. Doesnt make it lay and pray though does it.